The Failure of Liberalism

Posted By
Jonathan Bowden
On
May 8, 2019 @ 9:22 am
In
North American New Right |
Comments Disabled

[1]9,206 words

The following is the transcript of a speech that Jonathan Bowden delivered to a meeting of the British National Party in Thringstone, Leicestershire on March 12, 2010. The transcript was made by J. B. The video can be seen below.

Thank you very much. I would like to thank [inaudible] for inviting me up here and driving me up here for this meeting. I’ve spoken in Leicestershire a few times, and this is the fourth time.

I would like to start by telling you what I know of the court case, which was sort of semi-resolved this afternoon. It appears that the media, which I haven’t seen, is saying that the case was lost, and that no new members since the court proceedings began can be allowed. But my belief is this isn’t technically true. They’re going on the headline. What I think has happened is the judge has thrown out most of the case from Phillips’ Human Rights and Equality Commission, but a linkage between the principles and the Constitution might technically mean that “ethnic members” might have to agree to partly repatriate themselves as part of being disconnected from the Constitution proper. But rather than rewrite the Constitution, this means removing a particular section which has been found to be objective. Once that is in turn removed, which could be done of course very easily, and a new draft on a computer of the same document prepared for the court, it means that you can take on new members. My understanding is that the backlog of new members has been partially dealt with and that £15,000 worth of new memberships were processed today after the judgment. So, whether the Human Rights Commission goes back to court to try and contest this remains to be seen, but it’s probably unlikely.

The motivation for this case was political, quite obviously. Phillips is under a lot of pressure in that bureaucracy because two members of the European Parliament were elected, and to a certain extent in the period before Richard Barnbrook was elected in London to the Greater London Assembly. So Ouseley and others who are his predecessors of the Human Rights Commission, when it was known as the Commission for Racial Equality and the attendant Commission for Sexual Equality, put pressure on Phillips to do something about the rise of this party.

I don’t need to tell you that this Commission receives £100,000,000 sterling a year – £100,000,000 – and it’s the amalgamation of all of the equality lobbies and attendant bureaucracies that used to be separate. In the 1960s, there used to be a race relations board under Wilson’s regime which then came forward into the Commission for Racial Equality in 1974-75, again under Wilson. It was a sort of Old Labour/free New Labour, if you like. Then it became the sort of late Commission for Racial Equality heading towards the Human Rights Commission. It merged in with the Gender Equality and Commission for Sexual Equality Bureau, but it also had homosexuality, transgender specification, and disability added to it.

Labour has passed ten to twelve acts since 1997 under different Home Secretaries, which relate to the issue of equality: what can be said, what can’t be said, what can be done in law, what can be done if you’re running a guesthouse, and so on and so forth. Most of these laws people are only dimly aware of. People in the media are terrified of the slightest non-compliance with some of this politically incorrect legislation, which is why everything which is broadcast by the BBC – certainly that’s prepared to air and isn’t live – goes to a compliance unit inside the corporation which checks it in relation to these laws. It basically means that you can’t really offend almost anybody these days, except maybe the English. You can offend them as much as you like.

So that’s basically what’s been done. I doubt if the European seats have been won, and that this will be coming forward. After all, Labour has been in for thirteen years. They’ve had the better part of a decade and a half to bring this legislation forward while they wait until the fag-end of the last round period before they go down to some sort of defeat in the mid-year, because Labour is not going to have a majority after May 6. They may be empowered by another party, they may be a minority government, there may be a Tory minority government, there might be a grand coalition, there could be a Liberal-Labour pact, as there was in the late 1970s between Steel and Callaghan, and there could maybe be some sort of hybrid Liberal-Tory pact. In some ways, Clegg and Cameron would go very well together, given that they’re almost semi-interchangeable politicians, from our point of view.

Now, there is a degree to which this attempt to get certain persons to come forward and have the chance to join this organization is an obvious attempt to disrupt the organization from without. It’s an attempt to sow divisions between people, get certain people to peel off on the outer edge of the party and join more hard-line groups, as well as create divisions internally. We all know there are stresses and tensions in all political groupings around personality and other things. People who are slightly more moderate than others can possibly chafe at bringing certain people along, and cause tension and difficulty for certain organizers. This is particularly acute in some of the cities. Now, all of this in some ways can be managed, and there are different ways to do so. Most of the Continental parties that are described as far-Right parties have essentially had to acquiesce in all sorts of laws and go along with them because they believe the important thing is to stand as a machine at every election: local, regional, federal, or however their state is constituted in France, Italy, Austria, Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, and elsewhere. We will probably have to adopt the same hard-faced sort of attitude.

In about 1996, or thereabout, I attended the red, white, and blue of the Front National in France. And to a degree, I knew Jean-Marie Le Pen. There’s a degree to which there were 125,000 people at that event – not 2000 people, not 1,500 people, not 900 people, not 3,500 people, but 125,000 people – and a later one before the French state banned it in 2003 or thereabout which had a quarter of a million people. A quarter of a million people. It was extraordinary. They used to have it in the Racetrack, which is a particular district on the outer suburban edge of Paris. The French state banned it, saying it was a “danger to health and safety.” But there were rock concerts of [inaudible], and these people who are listened to by no one who isn’t French; but in France they have enormous audiences. And 300,000 attended his concerts in the same place, so there is no question it was done for nothing other than political reasons. But you have this essential sea, a sea of white French faces as it were, stretching to the horizon, and you would have 60 ethnic individuals from Guadalupe and elsewhere – 60 out of a quarter of a million. And that’s how the Front National basically dealt with that. The reason for all of these antics, and jiggery-pokery, and essentially messing about is to prevent an organization like this from springing up at election time and for people who are sick of the Liberal-Labour-Tory coalition was and is to have something to vote for. They had to have something to vote for which is against the system, which is against that which is constituted – today, in the past, and in the future.

This party is a danger to the ruling establishment. When Blunkett was Home Secretary, before they split the Home Secretary into two Bureaus as they now do, Home and Justice, Blunkett said, “Wherever the British National Party wins, at local, regional, or national level, or devolved level in Scotland and Wales, they are a threat to this society as it currently exists, as liberals have created it over the last fifty to sixty years.” And that is essentially true. Most of the comments made by the New Labour elite against a party like this, that they perceive as their real enemy, internally, the “enemy within” in their own jargon, is in their own way of looking at things true. Much of the blabber between the parties, who agree on eighty percent of the agenda and argue ferociously about the twenty percent that remains, about which they differ in terms of implementation, is froth and turns the public off as they increasingly realize that these parties, the blue one, the red one, and the orange and yellow one are sort of interchangeable.

But in relation to this party that disagrees with the others’ eighty percent, there might be the odd correlation on this or that, because we’re all living in the same country on twenty percent of matters, but on eighty percent-plus, there’s a total difference. So when Blunkett says that there is a danger to the entire system and society, he means politically and philosophically and structurally, and he’s right. He is not being alarmist, he’s not being a fool, he’s not stirring the pot unnecessarily. They know the kind of cross society they created in the last fifty years, and they know they didn’t do it with the consent of the British majority. They didn’t do it with the consent of people here in Leicestershire. As I’m sure you realize, Leicester is England, and Britain’s first ethnic city. Leicester is the first city where if you aggregate all the minorities together, they are a majority. Of course, these people have little in common with each other, but aggregated so together, they are a majority, and the indigenous population, a phrase the constitutional-mongers in the courts and in Phillips’ Human Rights Commission don’t care for, are in a minority. It’s something like 51/49 or 52/48 in Leicester.

I don’t know Leicester very well, but when I went there a couple of times in the last five years it struck me that, like a lot of our urban spaces, it’s been effectively ruined at several different levels. It’s been ruined demographically, it seems to be slightly ruined to a southerner like me by putting a motorway or several motorways right through the heart of it, which is what they’ve done with Leeds and several other cities. They seem to have knocked down some of the best buildings and some of the Victorian Quarter. So you can see; and I’ve been here from the outside. So, there are levels of destruction going on in the last forty to fifty to sixty years. Biological destruction and decay, architectural and physical devastation, and some sort of urban planning, what Wilson in the 1960s called the “white heat of technology.” Do you remember all that? The white heat that would sort of bring us into a new era, like the atomic promise that was offered to a generation slightly before that. Where’s all that white heat of technology gone? All the people who were bombed-out in the War in the big cities, say in the East End of London, and these great tower blocks that were sprung up in the big cities – most of them are being blitzed or blown up or taken down, in inner Birmingham, in inner Glasgow, in inner London. They’re being taken down because they are the eyesores and rat runs that they became. So there were people who were bombed-out during the War, and stuffed into them in the new peace that came thereafter, with the Labour landslides in 1945 and the Labour governments from 1964 through to 1970, and 1974 through to 1979.

Now, since 1997, New Labour has come in and been reelected three times. The problem with many of our people is that they can’t see what is genuinely in front of them. Everyone with any sense at all realized that Blair wasn’t some magic antidote to the Major years. Remember the Major years? At the end, Tory MPs were holding up manila envelopes with dubious questions in their mouths, waiting for the envelopes to be filled with thousands. It was a very sordid period. The Tories had been in for about 20 years. They were tired, they were dying, they had no new ideas, and they were swept away. I remember going to a polling booth that very Thursday, and you could see the anger in peoples’ faces. They wanted to punish Major and the Tories. And 180 majority for Labour. Extraordinary, even in middle class areas, the Tories were swept out in the biggest defeat they had since 1832. And what comes in? New Labour comes in. And Labour promised a new deal and a new change, a differentiated version of Wilson’s promise of the white heat of technology, or of the 1960s – all the rebuilding of the society directly after 1945.

And what has happened since 1997? This country is bankrupted now to several dimensions. The amounts of money that the country owes is astronomical. We are spending enormous amounts of money as if there is no tomorrow in order to prop up capitalist banks, at least half of which went bankrupt about a year and a half to two years ago. It’s an extraordinary situation that we are now in that if Lloyds had collapsed, and NatWest hadn’t stopped the collapse, about a fifth, to a quarter, to a third of the population would have gone to these machines and put the card in the machine, and no money would have come out. And similarly, a certain proportion of benefits wouldn’t have been paid, either. You’re talking about recessionary change of a sort that Western societies have not seen since the great crash in 1929-30.

Brown said he had abolished boom and bust, but in actual fact, there was a boom, and now it’s well and truly busted. And he managed to get out of Number 11 Downing Street just before it occurred and move over to Number 10 as he replaced Blair, as he had always plotted to do and as he had always wanted to do. Because Blair was an actor and a performer and an artiste and a sort of mountebank and a pathological liar, and it took about ten years for British people to work out what he was like. Blair can argue for a position over there, and then he could go over there and argue with equal sincerity against the position that he just enunciated. He was a performer: somebody who was more like one of these stars or soap operas than a politician. The interesting thing is that the British people trusted him once, and then again, and then, to a slightly lesser extent, even again. But the greatest damage that New Labour has done to the society isn’t the Iraq War, important though that is in relation to the Chilcot Inquiry that’s going on at the moment. It’s not even the economical crash, substantial and devastating though that is for many, particularly as we face the prospect of a double-dip recession. The real damage that they’ve done to the society is the opening up, and then opening up again, and then the opening up again to mass migration from the Second and Third and Fourth World, which between about 1999 and 2003-4 has changed the nature of the island and its internal demography out of all recognition. Parts of inner London now, parts of inner Birmingham, Hemsworth are 80% non-white. Parts of the East End of London are literally in the Third World in areas like Dalston or Greater Hackney, or parts of Stoke Newington, or elements of De Beauvoir Town or Lambeth. South of the river, there are parts of Newham and so on.

It’s as if we virtually don’t exist there anymore. Nearly all of the indigenous people have got out of these areas, have fled out of them. The only people who are left are the people who are too old or too sick or too poor and can’t get out. And about four to five years ago, there were lots of Polish, some Ukrainian, and other immigrants who came in through the European Union license to take cheap jobs during the trashiest part of the credit- and debt-fueled boom cycle that was then riding high. And Brown said he was the Iron Chancellor who controlled movements of capital, controlled movements of labor, which is what migration is. You have a system now where our economy and most Western economies are locked into global structures of power and finance, where great walls of money move across the world at the touch of a screen in the city bureaus of London, Leeds, Glasgow, or wherever. Where jobs move from the south of England to the north of England, to Hungary, to China, to Indonesia, and they’re undercut at each level, as lots of people work in and around or just under to just over the minimum wage. Any trouble, they’re out and they’re replaced by somebody else. And in order to have an economy where you can have a mobile phone at three in the morning or have a pizza at four in the morning, or have a pasta dish arrive at your door in a van with a man with a cap at five in the morning, and you pay with some plastic, and you pay on the never-never. And this all goes on twenty-four hours a day, with a bit of a break on Christmas day, a bit of a break on Easter day, but otherwise it’s full-on consumption without production, fueled by debt and based upon credit.

And there is a flip side to all this cheap and easy money which builds up almost like interconnected pyramid schemes or scams or forms of fraud. If a private individual did them – which is what many of these institutions and banks got themselves into. The flip side of this is the mass movement of people all over the world swarming after the money, crossing over borders, crossing over continents. Getting up into Europe from Africa, through the Arab countries. In the Libyan desert, Gaddafi’s forces throw them back and allow some through, and some die in the Mediterranean, some are sunk by Italian patrol boats. A certain proportion get in. Mafias in Turkey and elsewhere funnel people in. Other people are trying to get out of Albania, or out of the old Yugoslavia, and into the other side of the European Union. Great swathes of people are coming from war zones, which have been created by the policies of certain Western leaders, from Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe in the next couple of years from Iran, because major structural changes in world power are coming.

It’s difficult to predict the future, but I think we’re living in a very, very radical age. A hundred years ago, 1910, we ruled a quarter of the planet. We had many internal problems, particularly in relation to slums, poverty, and much else, but we were a major society, and a largely organic society as well, a feared society. It’s different, but we virtually had the status in the world that the United States, for good or ill, has now. It’s moved downwards in every sense, certainly since 1946-48. We lost the Raj in 1948, were bankrupted in order to destroy fascism in 1945, had to be bailed out and rescued by the United States in the post-war period. Mass migration begins in 1948. It begins very, very slowly, as alleged recompense for Empire. It then becomes more of a flood as you get more of a desire for more and more cheap labor to fuel the fact that we’re increasingly just living on financial services and consumption. We produce virtually nothing. We once built the world’s ships, the world’s planes, the world’s tanks, the world’s cars, the world’s motorbikes; we now make nothing. We add value at points of post-production, in relation to things which are made elsewhere. And we make money from the circulation of money, and we balance it all by the value of our houses, which, for the broad and extended middle class, goes up and up and up, particularly in the southern part of the Kingdom, out of all proportion to what the value of the thing actually is. So all of these factors: easy credit, cheap money, banks playing roulette, split off from the normal banking function, and doing it through the City of London; mass movement of money all around for the biggest return, and mass migration as people come in, seeing their chance, and liberal elites who either favor this or don’t want to do anything about it, or are too hamstrung by their own ideas that they get from college or elsewhere to even attempt to do so.

My view is that it’s a deliberate attempt, a pre-planned attempt, a chaotic chimera, imbroglio, and also just the chaos that liberalism brings in its way. And you see chaos in all areas. You see it in the Health Service. All this stuff about Stafford Hospital, did you see that the other week? They’re left to die in corridors, they’re sort of dying in their own feces in wards, there’s basically too few nurses and too few doctors because they were granted a foundation status, which is a silly little bureaucratic norm that New Labour introduced to allegedly improve things, and it led to the shattering of that hospital. By the time the special measures people went in, Stafford Hospital was in the Third World. It wasn’t a First World facility: it was in the Third World. People in Stafford even had cut signs in their cars, which say if they’re involved in an accident, they do not want to be taken to Stafford General. This is the way that our institutions have been degraded over time, and this is just one example of one hospital in one area. Do you remember about ten years ago, there were those photos from a mortuary at a hospital in Norwich in Anglia where the corpses of the dead were piled up because there wasn’t anywhere else for them to be put? And they were sort of shoved out into a room like this, or some gymnasium that was adjacent to the hospital facility. This is the National Health Service, that the Tories opposed and the doctors opposed when it was created – not the line they now pursue – and that Labour introduced in the teeth of such opposition. And yet, this is a system that is crumbling in many respects. And although the criticisms by the Republican Right in the United States about the NHS are overdone because of their fear of social medicine, and their only concern is for the people who have the money to pay for it, nevertheless, there is a crippled element to the NHS here, and New Labour are responsible for it, as they are responsible for the chaos in the schools. Mass comprehensivization was introduced by Shirley Williams in the 1970s. It was an attempt to improve standards, to remove elitism, to provide opportunity, to increase tolerance: all these things that Labourites talk about. The subtext is that they will not send their own children to these schools. They won’t send their children to these schools because they know what has happened to them, that in many schools in the big cities 16-year-olds come out barely literate, barely numerate, speaking like Jamaican gangsters, knowing nothing about their own culture, knowing nothing about their own history, and with little future in the society that’s coming.

A third of all 16-to-23-year-olds are unemployed, and whenever you go for a job now, even if it’s swabbing toilets, they say, “Where’s your experience?” Without having any experience, you haven’t got any, and ergo you can’t get that job, can you? And so there’s going to be a large generation within this new type of recession that is growing up with no absolute unemployment. If you don’t get a job between 18 and 30, Brown wants to keep everyone in school. But there’s the thing: you do have to leave eventually. And we’ll have this society that’s very old, very much in debt, where the young don’t work, where we don’t produce anything, and yet still hundreds of thousands and millions of people are flooding in. Since 1997, about three million people have gone to live in Spain, and in Australia, and in America, and elsewhere. But this is a very small country, and there is no escape. In a sense, we have to return to some very fundamental standards and merits. Here, in this society, when Cameron says, “Britain is broken,” there is a minor resonance in the society. People stopped listening to Cameron quite a long time ago, but when he says that Britain is broken, I think people do still prick their ears up a little bit. Because Britain is broken, but it’s broken in a way he doesn’t even begin to configure, because of the radicalism of what’s occurred and how this country has in certain respects slid off the civilized map in many areas.

It’s quite breathtaking in many respects. A certain proportion of people who are comfortable in the society close their eyes, and close their doors, and close their gates to what is happening. You see it particularly in the big cities, where many people increasingly live in gated estates. These are the estates that have 24-hour security and cameras on the outside of the estate. You need to go through a gate just to get in. You have to swipe a card to get in, like these hotels: you swipe the card, the gate opens, and there’s some heavy on the inside, and this sort of thing. This is how the rich live in Third World countries, where the daughter of a rich man has a heavy with a Kalashnikov when she goes to the shops. And this is because in societies like Venezuela, it’s a jungle out there. It’s violent and rough, and there’s little social benefits, and there are enormous illicit shanty towns on the edge of cities. In our cities, these sorts of areas are in the middle, the inner city. In France, they’re built on the outside in the suburbs. But it’s the same phenomenon which is occurring all over the West. Certain crimes transfigure the society in relation to their ferocity and their psychopathic mania.

I would just like to draw attention for a moment to the Bulger case and the recent antics involving the return of Venables to prison. These cases take on an iconic register, particularly in a declining culture. Although, as liberals say, it’s not entirely logical, people see in these very abhorrent crimes something that says something about a larger sweep of chaos and decay and the cracks in the family, as the middling structure between the individual and the state. Now, these crimes are abnormal, even in terms of criminality. But they are also in their treatment and in the outrage of the public about them, and how they were resolved by the courts – indeed, by a liberal society. The tabloids play games: they have their own agendas, they like to whip up a mob spirit for their own potential good, and in order to make money. But they are feeding on the anger of the public about these sorts of unresolved matters. The truth is that these types of crimes actually confront certain liberal theories about man, woman, mankind, and our nature.

One thing I mentioned earlier in this talk was the Home Secretary. He released Venables and Thompson because he thought they could be reformed, or they had been reformed. That’s a mistaken view because both of them are psychopaths, and Venables in my view particularly so, and they were born that way. And there’s a lot of genetic and biological evidence for this fact. They will not change, which is why he has been returned to prison for a grotesque and egregious offense. The public may not know the details of the biology, they may not know that extreme psychopaths think that love is hate, and rape is normal sex, and to kill an individual is the equivalent of killing a fly. They don’t necessarily know that in Ashworth and Broadmoor and Rampton, the hospitals for the criminally insane. There are psychopaths who have this sort of condition. They actually lack certain chromosomes in their own biological nature, which means they have no sympathy for anything. This case in South Yorkshire recently involving those two boys who tried to kill two other boys has a similar register. Had they been the age of the Bulger toddler, they would have been murdered just the same. My view is that when Venables and Thompson reached 18, they should have been hanged instead of being released. I don’t believe in hanging children; therefore, when they’re 10, you keep them in a special unit until they’re 18. Then when they’re 18, they’re sentient, they’re adult, they’re aware retrospectively of what they’ve done, they can’t be changed, they can’t be redeemed, they can’t be transformed. Therefore, it is in a sense a morally conscious act to execute them in a way that they themselves would understand. I think it’s fitting and licit that we draw a line under these sorts of offenses.

Liberals can never make their minds up about anything. “Oh, the victim is a sideshow, but at the same time, we’re sorry for them.” And then, “Venables is the real victim, and he’s had a harsh background and a pink teddy was taken off him when he was 3, and he’s had a hard life. Haven’t you got any sympathy?” Yet at the same time, when confronted with the mother and the Bulger toddler, they’re in pieces and wringing their hands. It’s because their view of life is false. And if their view of life is false about very, very extreme matters on the margins of law, on the margins of crime, on the margins of mental illness, on the margins of human life, it’s going to be false about all sorts of other things that are more central to human experience and are further in. If nearly all of their views about all of the matters that are discussed night after night in the mass media are false – that men and women are the same and interchangeable, that all groups are the same and they can all live on the same territory, that amiability and cooperation are natural to man, when warfare and conflict has been at the maximum amount since the very beginning, when humans are biologically tribal and communitarian to such a degree that it takes a lot for many people to even not distrust people from their own group or sections of that group, or other parts of the country. It’s difficult enough to knit a country together over centuries, if not millennia. Then the idea that everyone can live in each other’s country is a recipe for alienation and chaos, particularly if you have a very small territory. England fits into Texas twelve times. Britain fits into Texas eight times. There’s a degree to which many Americans can move, or think that they can move.

The San Francisco Chronicle had an article last week that said that white Americans will be in an absolute minority inside the United States in forty years. That’s 2050, slightly quicker than was presented before. It was said to be 50 or 60 years. This means that the premier society in the West, which has been part of the model of the Anglophone and what the rest of the West is following, namely ourselves, is indeed the model for the decay that we are all experiencing. I was in the southern states in the United States of America not too long ago. There’s still quite a bit of kick, there’s still quite a bit of power inside the US if you go there and just look at it with your eyes open. But still, America is in radical decline. When Booker T. Washington, the leader of black America, went to see President Theodore Roosevelt at the beginning of the twentieth century, there were howls of outrage from whites. There were tens of thousands of letters saying the President shouldn’t have allowed him to enter the White House. The Ku Klux Klan had a march of four million people – four million – in the early 1920s which led to the all-white immigration policy that then characterized American life until the 1960s. Now a third of America is non-white, Obama is President, and seventy million persons have entered the United States of America from the Third World, from the Second World, from the Fourth World since the late 1960s. American cities have been changed out of all recognition. People who sit watching John Wayne-themed movies from the 1950s and 1960s have a view of America that is so out of kilter with what the rest of the reality is now that they’re basically looking at a little time capsule, a bubble for their own entertainment on DVD or whatever else. Obama’s presidency signifies the death knell of this perceptibility within the West.

This is particularly relevant for British people. Although we often don’t like what America does, many people in America are descended from us, and are very similar in the way that they behave to us. Your average post-British white American in Kansas or elsewhere has no control whatsoever over what the government does in his name within the beltway of Washington, DC, within that closed elite, just as we have no control whatsoever in relation to what Blair does, or in relation to what Brown does, or in relation to what Blunkett did when he was Home Secretary, all of it done in our name.

One of the most stupid things which has been done in the last 10 years is these Third World wars, these wars of the Third World, which are done in our name and yet have simultaneously introduced large groups from the populations of the countries that are being attacked by American and Western power into our own society. Logically, you either don’t allow them in and you don’t attack them, or you don’t allow them in and for whatever reason you do attack them. But you don’t attack them after you have let large numbers of them settle in your own society and then go with American power to bomb and destroy and devastate entire areas of Pakistan and elsewhere to fight in the southern deserts of Helmand in southeast Afghanistan. I know people who are there now. And the war in Afghanistan is very, very tough. British troops are fighting full-on with a ferocity and violence in person-to-person contact, our soldiers call it. Such ferociousness has not been seen since the Korean War or since the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War, when the Viet Cong and the American Marine Corps crashed head-to-head in a really ferocious conflict. The Taliban are brave people. They fight for every village, for every space of land. They retreat, they plant bombs everywhere, they invite you in, and they’ll kill themselves before they surrender. And they’re Pashtuns. They’re not on the orders of Afghanistan. They hate the Afghan government and its police because they’re Tajiks, who are another group.

In the town I went to school in, there’s a big monument with a big lion in the center, and people think it relates to the 1914-1918 War, the First World War, and the mass slaughter on the Somme and elsewhere. It doesn’t. It relates to the 1890 conflict in Afghanistan, where Lord Roberts had some major losses after a few successes, it has to be said, in relation to the same people who we’re fighting in Afghanistan now. We don’t need to be in Afghanistan. We’re not there to fight to put a democracy in place. These people don’t believe in democracy, anyway, and will tear to pieces long after we’ve gone. They support their tribal welfare, they support their own blood clan. If one of their group is killed, they all come together to revenge themselves as a clan. They’re born gun in hand. This is their life and their land: leave it to them. Leave everything in their own hands, just as we wish to be alone here to live on our own.

Our imperial period is over. There’s a banging sort of old or established conservative in a bit of me that regrets the imperial passage, but as Enoch Powell said in the middle of the last century, “It is over.” When Enoch was asked to join the Suez Group, the pro-imperial group of Tory MPs, then was not left on the backbench but sat on the front benches, he said, “I’m not going to do it because it’s over.” We have to realize that these wars in Palestine and Cyprus and the other places we’ve gone to in the 1950s, and thereafter in the late 1940s, were the fag-end of Empire. It’s the end of Empire. What we’ve had is a backwash of Empire to such a degree that the people we once ruled now rule in Leicester. We’ve had a complete reversal of what we once were as a society to such a degree that people flood out of cities like Leicester, for example, but there are many others to choose from, and if they can live in the towns, hamlets, semi-towns, large urban villages, and so on to get property, around about two million people have fled out of London to get away from what’s happening. Not one of the mainstream candidates who stand for Mayor of London will do anything. Livingstone’s all in favor of it. Johnson and so on won’t speak about it. Johnson wants to legitimize it, and he’s the Tory man, not Labour, not even Old Labour and a dissident the way Livingstone was, playing those populist Left games with group against group within the capital.

There are 450,000 illegal migrants in London alone, and Johnson wants to legalize their status in the capital so they can all pay tax. He thinks this is a happening deal and a good bit of progressive Cameroonian conservatism, as he perceives it. All of them become like New York mayors. They become people who appeal to this group and this group, and they say one evening, “I’m with you.” They say another evening, “I’m with you.” Livingstone is the first one in some ways to work out what this type of new big-city politics is like. On Monday, he’ll be with a Muslim group, when he was Mayor anyway, and even now he wants to run as Mayor again, and he’ll say, “I’m with you.” On Tuesday he’ll be in Islington with a gay group, and he’ll say, “I’m with you,” not realizing that these two groups are completely antithetical. But they all can be put together because they all have an enemy that’s the same, or whom they can perceive of as some sort of threat to themselves. Every festival from everywhere in the world was permitted under Livingstone. He gave Black History Month £123,000 every November. In every library in London, Black History Month was rolled out. It was not an accident. If you’re some sort of obscure librarian and you say, “I want to opt out of Black History Month,” that’s not permitted. It’s right across London, and it’s right across Britain. Now, Black History Month often comes to an end because there isn’t very much black history to have the month about, so the months get shorter and shorter every year by a couple of days to a degree that it becomes a couple of days, even a couple of hours, a couple of minutes. But it’s the idea that it exists. Johnson’s cut the money for Black History Month from £123,000 a year to ten grand a year. Basically, in political terms, that’s abolishing it. And Livingstone’s gone screaming all over the media and London saying, “Racism! The cultural racism of the Tories that’s been revealed!” The cultural racism of the Tories? This is the Mayor who wants to liberate and enfranchise by giving citizenship to upwards of half a million illegals that he knows to be in the city. Because none of the mainstream parties will do anything to remove people who are here illegally, which they in turn say is a crime. But it’s a crime about which one must do nothing, just like in the United States.

In Western Europe, people believe George W. Bush is Right-wing, he’s a Christian fundamentalist or something similar, that he’s ferocious. George W. Bush on race and immigration in the United States is a liberal and a humanist. There are eighteen million illegal, largely Mexican, immigrants inside the United States: eighteen million inside the federal union, with three hundred million people in the union. Bush, when he was President, wanted to regularize that and legitimize them and bring them into citizenship. He said it was compassionate: an American and a Christian thing to do. This is a man who has been demonized as a Right-wing Republican that Left-wing people in California and Western Europe grit their teeth over when he came on television with his Texan, Billy Bob accent. Yet here on these core issues, he is a liberal.

This is the dilemma that Western populations face. The contemporary Right – the Right that’s allowed – is liberal. The Left is in favor of capitalism. They all seem interchangeable. They’re all engaged in a kind of political transvestism. When Labour says it’s tough on crime – pardon? – and the Tories say they love the NHS, what’s all that about? And they swap around with each other because they’re all growing into each other. They’re all merging into each other. The days when the Tories were just middle class and Labour was just working class and the unions are gone. They’re fusing into each other. They all support the same things. You’ve got Clegg in the middle, you’ve got Brown on the one side losing his temper – shoving, screaming, and crying about it on television. Have you seen the new technique? It’s to cry, which is what Clinton did. Whenever Clinton was in trouble, he would burst out crying. Clinton could cry for money, for his mother, for Heaven, for Hell, for anything. He’s a man who could blubber for ten minutes about Haiti and then wonder where his burger has gone. This is a man whose emotions are completely synthetic. Increasingly, they do this because this is such a soft and feminized and deracinated and broken-down culture that male politicians appeal to the electorate by showing how weak they are, and how vulnerable they are, and how they have to get in touch with their sensitive feelings. In the past, leaders would talk about power and greatness and strength, but people who do that now are regarded as maniacs. You don’t want anything to do with those nutters. You want to elect leaders who are crying into their milk about Chile and about Haiti and about everything else – about AIDS, about Africa.

I have one thing to say about all these people who give enormous amounts of money to local charities and so on. A vast proportion of this money is wasted. Vast proportions of it go into the hands and pockets of militias and military dictators. It’s very amusing to me that Geldof – lovely old Geldof with his I’ve-taken-too-many-strange-pills sort of a Dublin voice – is going on the BBC saying, “No, no, no, most of the money that we put forward reaches the starving.” That’s what he was saying. There’s a Tigrayan rebel leader, which is a part of Ethiopia, that says in their area ninety-five percent of this money – and he served in the government – has been creamed off by his militia to buy Soviet tanks, to buy weapons. And he said, “Let them starve,” this Tigrayan leader, “let them starve because we’re the red guard. We come to bear power over those that are dying. These soft liberal whites and other fools! The money comes in, we take it, and we buy weapons because we want power.” That’s the voice of the Third World. That’s a voice that has been heard throughout human history down millennia. It’s a voice we’d forgotten here in the West because we became too wet and too soft and too broken down and too unaware of what human life is about. And in a sense, if the Western world, as in Britain and all of the countries in what is conceived of as the West, do not wake up in the window that is here in the next forty years, between now and the middle of this century – this is a key window. It’s as radical as if somebody stood in 1910 and looked out at the world. Think of what awaited them and they didn’t know: the First World War, the Great Crash, the false boom of the 1920s, the rise of fascism and Communism, the Second World War, the Cold War thereafter. None of it could have been predicted by a man, unless he were a seer, in 1910. I think we’re standing in 2010 and we’re looking out on a world.

Thirty-four countries are developing nuclear weapons. Iran will have them certainly in two years. They have missiles that can reach London now. North Korea has missiles that can reach the Pacific coast of the United States. Hundreds of millions of people are moving across continents, but in certain countries are dying. Some are remaining there to perish. Others rule what remains. Most Third World countries consist of a tiny bourgeois group, professionals; an elite at the top which is usually military, and a mass. There is really nothing in between. There is no middle class, essentially. Many people who think they have a bit of boom and a bit of vigor are trying to get into the West for a new life. Of course, if we had been born in those groups, as people with a bit of spirit and a bit of get-up-and-go, we might be doing something similar. Life isn’t pleasant. People do go where they see the chance is. We have to remember certain verities about life. We have to forget the blandishments of the liberal media. We have to remember that the three parties are in favor of the same things: Clegg and Brown and Cameron all support mass migration, they all support globalization, they all support movement of capital and labor around the world, they all support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – liberals slightly less on the war in Iran, that’s a minor difference, but in some ways that’s come and gone. They all support membership in the European Union. They all deny the people a right to vote about the Lisbon Treaty that replaced the Constitution. Brown lied blatantly in the last election and said there would be a vote. That’s been revoked because they know they would lose it. So they all agree on it. Cameron said there would be a vote, but now it’s gone through: “Sorry, no, can’t do it.” In any case, they represent big capital through the CBI, the Institute of Directors, and so forth, not small or middling capital. This means the last thing they want to do is open up ideas about referenda on Europe, because it opens the question, as UKIP do generally say, of whether we remain in or not. So, there’s another issue where they are all the same. They’re all the same about Sinn Féin government in Northern Ireland, they’re all the same about taking Venables and Thompson out, and similar extreme and egregious crimes on the margins of society, and they’re all the same, pretty much, about political correctness. Cameron is allegedly a member of United against Fascism. Extraordinary!

When I was born, Douglas-Home was Tory Prime Minister. He was pretty out of touch, pretty aristocratic in all sorts of ways. But to imagine a snob like him would be a member of United against Fascism or give them money is extraordinary and shows you how this society has changed. Criticize homosexuality now and you face, not imprisonment, but a fine, cultural disprivileging, and discipline, certainly if you work in the public sector. Forty to fifty years ago, the thing itself was illegal. So you see in issue after issue there’s been a complete reversal and transformation and turnaround. In relation to ethnicity, things could be said by The Daily Express in 1966 which would land the editor, or the sub-editor, in prison now. And that’s only forty to fifty years. It’s changed because of the ideas that went through the society after the 1960s, ideas which only eight to ten percent believed in then, but eighty-eight to ninety percent of those who are educated believe in now.

But there is one problem with the liberal project, and that is that the bulk of the people, such as in this audience tonight, don’t really go along with it. They don’t always have the words to challenge it, but instinctively they reject it, and increasingly are looking for a way within the parceling-up of what passes for democracy to vote in a manner which expresses that. If they vote liberal, they just ramify with what exists. If they vote Tory, they do the same. If they vote Labour, they do the same. But there is a change. There are significant working-class communities, particularly in the north but also elsewhere, who will turn on Labour, who will turn on Labour semi-tribally and as a group and hate Labour now. Many Labour activists go on estates and they have Walkmen in their ears because they don’t want to hear the abuse when they go to the door. Or they put the leaflet through and hurry off, or they say, “Sorry, mate, don’t have a go at me. You’re right and all that, but I’m just delivering these things. It will be pizzas tomorrow.” And that’s how they get out of the abuse. This is a total transformation, where Labour’s frightened of its own areas. The Tories are never seen in those areas, let’s face it. They don’t exist. In Liverpool, they come fifth. The Tories in Glasgow are sixth or seventh. They’re a minor party. They’re not a national party at all. They exist in the south of England, where I come from, in parts of the Midlands, in rural areas. Otherwise, they’re just a minority party. And Labour, in parts of the country, are a minority party, except for certain wards.

There’s also a certain proportion of the population that’s outside politics. I knocked on a bloke’s door once, canvassing. He said, “Yeah, mate, you got any money for drugs?” Straight out. I had just banged on his door. I said, “No.” “Well, expletive you then,” he said. “I’m not voting for you.” He staggered about, because he was seeing several of me, and then fell back into his flat. And he’s not alone, because in a sense he’s outside the system. And there’s a degree to which, as the society fractures, the ability of people to rely on core votes is increasingly in jeopardy. Labour have a subtext to the enormous migration wave allowed in. Ninety percent of post-Africans and Afro-Caribbeans vote Labour if they vote at all. Fifty-five to seventy-five percent of all Asians, if they vote at all, and unless they’re angry about a certain thing such as an attack on a Muslim country, vote Labour. So you see there is an in-built factor by the creation of these large wedges of population, as Enoch Powell once described them in a manner Trevor Phillips wouldn’t care for, to vote a particular way. But there are proportions of the society now that will never vote Labour again. And even if it’s only a protest vote, in the UKIP rise in middle class areas of the European elections, you see a bourgeois protest in part against the structure. What UKIP does is channel nationalistic feeling in a moderate and slightly faffy way for people who don’t want to go outside, don’t want to be abused or something, don’t want to take the heat, and all the rest of it. They don’t want to be described as politically incorrect and all the nasty words that go with that. So they channel it through the European thing. You can see for a lot of middle class people it’s a safe option for that. But the blocks are breaking, and they’re cracking, and if they crack a bit more, major representation will be achieved across the society.

We have the taking of cities like Stoke and parliamentary candidates in Westminster. Certainly if the Parliament is hung, it’s the best possible result for the radical Right, because it will be hung, and PR will come, an English Parliament will come, a democratic Lords, a so-called Senate, will come. At the moment, Lords is just stuffed full of Blair and Brown’s cronies. You just give Lords aside. Lord Alli is the country’s first homosexual Muslim peer, as he describes himself. And all these people are not Lords of the manor. Of course not! They’re just cronies and mates of the party leaders who got in. Better to have a democratic assembly.

And partly because people get so sick of voting for all these things – we have an election every other week – that their radicalism will grow. And the desire to kick, electorally or politically, the desire to put the ball into the sand, the desire to vote against the Liberals, against Labour, against the Conservatives, even against the other minority parties, the Celtic nationalist parties and their particular dispensation, will grow and will grow and will grow again. There is one party they need to vote for now and into the future: a party which is white, red, and blue irrespective of constitutional changes that are forced from without and that will, in the fullness of time, actually have little effect in the way the society perceives these matters, as things get more complicated. For old patriotic Labour, the social values of militant conservatism, and the indigenous character of the country to be combined in its national emblem, there needs to be a breakthrough by one party and one party alone. I ask you, in the weeks to that remain until May 6, to vote for this party when the election comes; to leaflet for this party; to canvas for it; to buy propaganda on behalf of it; to listen for it on the media; and to trawl the Internet to see what is said about it, particularly when it’s on the party’s own vehicles; to support candidates; to put money in buckets and give funds so that people can stand locally, regionally, and nationally, and internationally via Europe. And when people ask you on May 7, “Who did you vote for?”, you say, “I voted for the British National Party.”